Tag Archives: economics

Flip-Flop or Copycat?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Democratic Party Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on international trade.

As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton helped negotiate the yet-to-be-ratified Trans-Pacific Partnership and gave some 45 public speeches for TPP [TransPacific Partnership].

Then

…to fend off the Sanders challenge, she renounced the final TPP text in October 2015….

This isn’t new.  When Bill Clinton was pushing NAFTA, so did Hillary Clinton, and she repeated that in her memoir.  Then in her first Presidential campaign, she vowed to “renegotiate” NAFTA.

In that campaign, she assured her hoped-for union voters that she’d not conclude the sort of trade deals then in the offing with Cambodia and the Republic of Korea.  Once safely ensconced in the State Department, though, she put all of that Cabinet’s influence to work pushing for passage of exactly those deals (and tried to delete from her official State Department business personal email server NAFTA-related emails).

Here’s her chosen nominee, Senator Time Kaine (D, VA) on international trade, with the proposed TPP as his vehicle.

I am having discussions with a lot of groups around Virginia about the treaty itself. I see much in it to like.  I think it’s an upgrade of labor standards, I think it’s an upgrade of environmental standards. I think it’s an upgrade of intellectual property protections.

That was just prior to the Democratic Party Convention.  Here he is, now that he’s running for Vice President.

Kaine said he agreed with Clinton—who had helped negotiate the trade deal as secretary of state but now opposes as the Democratic presidential nominee—that the TPP did not meet certain standards on wages and national security.

Either way, this doesn’t predict a very stable administration, rather it suggests that Clinton and Kaine would change course with the winds of convenient politics.

Do We Really Need Four More Years?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s what nearly eight years of Progressivism, accomplished by President Barack Obama (D) and his Progressive-Democrat acolytes in the Democratic Party, have done.  As The Wall Street Journal put it:

  • largest stimulus spending bill in decades
  • Obamacare
  • nationalized the student-loan industry
  • turned the banks into public utilities answerable first to government

All of these have created the slowest recession recovery since WWII.  The nominally low unemployment rate that has been achieved is measured against the backdrop of the lowest labor participation rate in 40 years—in two generations.  Banks as government-managed public utilities, no longer responsive exclusive to the banks’ owners and creditors—which includes us individual savings and checking account holders?  That’s just another means for government to collect revenue.

Progressivism has been bypassing our republican democracy form of representative government for the last several years, too.  Obama has ruled by Executive diktat Executive Order, Executive Action, Department/Agency rulemaking to achieve

  • climate change
  • organizing

Then there’s foreign affairs.

  • deals with adversaries—the nuclear weapons deal with Iran, for instance, and acceptance of Russian partitions of Georgia and Ukraine
  • distanced us from our allies—denigrating Israel over their efforts to defend themselves against Palestinian terrorism, for instance
  • with Progressivism’s cynical budget maneuvering there’s less ability to support military spending—to the tune of defense spending falling to 3% of GDP and less—down from 4.6% those eight years ago

All of this is Progressivism’s pell-mell retreat from our responsibilities on the global stage, and that world is far more unstable and dangerous to us and to those friends and allies than it was eight years ago.

Then there’s Progressivism’s attitude toward us plebeian Americans.  They’ve plied the politics of identity to divide us by ideology, age, race, class, gender, and any other cleverly defined separation they could create, and then they’ve played these artificial distinctions (we used to be all Americans, after all, who happened to be of one gender or the other, have one skin color or another, one ethnic heritage or another) against each other in Progressives’ cynical effort to maximize their personal power.

Do we really need—can our nation really afford—four more years of the same?

Government’s Market Interference

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote about this matter just a bit ago.  Now DoJ has gone ahead and filed its lawsuits seeking to block the mergers between Anthem Inc and Cigna Corp and between Aetna Inc and Humana Inc.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s rationale for this is this:

If these mergers were to take place, the competition among these insurers that has pushed them to provide lower premiums, higher quality care and better benefits would be eliminated[.]

And

They would leave much of the multi-trillion dollar health insurance industry in the hands of three mammoth insurance companies, and restricting companies, and restricting competition in key markets[.]

The one is mere speculation, and the other is prior restraint.  It’s certainly true that the mergers would create very large companies and leave fewer of them in the market.  But to say that this must reduce competition is just a guessing game, especially since Lynch declined to say—as her predecessors have declined to say, and as economists cannot say—what the minimum number of enterprises must be in any industry for there to be competition.  Indeed, absent collusion, which is illegal, two companies are driven to compete with each other by the economic forces extant in a free market.

Never mind, either, that as Lynch knows full well, that what’s illegal in America, what’s illegal under our antitrust laws—and all that’s necessary to be illegal—is abuse of monopoly power, not the existence of it.  As with the rest of our laws in a free country, these companies must actually commit the misbehavior before they can be sanctioned for it.

On the other hand, Government does allow protected monopolies—Ma Bell before its court-ordered breakup is one example.  A protected monopoly is a monopoly that is explicitly protected by Government: the monopoly is allowed to exist, and it is overtly protected from competition, in return for which the monopoly agrees to be heavily regulated by Government, including the prices it’ll be allowed to charge and the services it’ll be allowed to provide.  Indeed, protected monopolies are textbook examples of regulatory capture—only two-sided: the monopoly and the regulators have captured each other.

Lynch’s action, though, is an abuse of our antitrust laws; it’s nothing more than the Democrats’ campaign of lawfare.  Given the nature of Obamacare, though, maybe this protected monopoly/regulatory mutual capture is this administration’s final goal for health insurance companies.  That would be both a further effort to nationalize our private companies and an example of this administration’s view that it can control the capture.

This sort of behavior, too, emphasizes that the coming election will have consequences, not only for the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, it’ll have consequences for the nation’s Department of Justice and the other Executive Branch Cabinets and Agencies (and for our lower courts).

All of this, in the end, is motivated in part by individual Progressive-Democrats’ grasping for personal gain.

It is, though, even more strongly motivated by Progressive-Democrats’ collective contempt for their Lessers, us poor, dumb, plebeian Americans.

[T]he average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.

Because More of the Same

Posted on by
Reply

…will correct the failures of that same.

[T]he International Monetary Fund on Thursday issued an “urgent” call for the world’s largest economies to roll out more growth-boosting policies.

Those growth-boosting policies already in place these last eight years since the Panic of 2008 have worked so well.  The easy money from the various central banks have done so well to spur growth.  Regulation from the center has done so well to spark national economies.

Yeah, that’s why there’s this “urgent need” for more.

With experts like these, who needs the amateurs of free markets?

But That’s The Point

Posted on by
1

Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division, on the proposed mergers between Anthem Inc and Cigna Corp and between Aetna Inc and Humana Inc, called them “game-changers” and added that it was necessary for Government to interfere with the mergers

to make sure we aren’t making a mistake in which shareholders benefit and the consumers pay the cost.

It’s certainly true that consumers should be protected from fraudulent behaviors and from price gouging.  However, it is those consumers who, as customers, pay for the goods and services companies provide—which ultimately pays those shareholders, too—else the companies don’t survive, and the consumer/customer has no good or service available to buy.

And that’s true whether consumers operate in a free market or in a corporate fascist or any other socialist market.  Consumers either pay directly, based on their own choice (including their choice not to buy at all), or every consumer pays (with no choice at all) for the one, in the form of taxes which government uses to prop up the companies it’s found suitable to exist.

In a free market, too, the company’s owners should be the ones who benefit; indeed, our laws recognize that: a company’s managers owe their fiduciary duty to their employers—those shareholders.

But with this administration, Government Knows Better.